Evidence – Yuva Case Study

Slide22

For the evaluation of the outcomes of the digital classroom project, we look at a sample of 156 schools that are engaged with Yuva Unstoppable. The data is taken from students in grades 6, 7 and 8, in schools that are based in Gujarat, MP, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. A majority of these schools (64%) are from Gujarat, while 16% are based in Maharashtra.

Out of these 156 schools, 49 are Control schools, for which we have data from before YU made any interventions. Hence, they provide a reference for comparison with the schools where YU has implemented any program. For the purpose of clarity, we look at Smart Classrooms and Google Future Classrooms together in the following slides, though the results are similar for both the programs.

For the 107 schools in the sample where YU has made an intervention, 83 received both the Smart Classroom (SC) and WASH intervention. The WASH intervention, however, was implemented before the scope of the data collected in this study. The remaining 24 schools received only the Smart Classroom, without the WASH facilities. These schools received the Smart Classroom intervention in 2017-18, and the data provides the outcomes after 1 year of implementation, in 2018-19. These outcomes include figures for enrolment, attendance, and test results from the exams the students take as part of their curriculum.

1. Students Outcomes:

1.1 Outcomes: Enrolment

The control group showed a 4.4% increase in student enrolment, on average. Schools with SC-only intervention registered a 15.9% rise. In schools with both SC and Wash, increase in enrolment was similar at 14.4%. This suggests that Smart Classrooms have a clear positive impact on enrolment than the WASH programs. Although, it should be noted that the WASH program was implemented before the period of this data, and the results might not reflect the immediate effect.

1.2 Outcomes: Attendance

Next, we examine how the introduction of the smart classrooms impacted the attendance of students in schools. We look at data from grades 6, 7 and 8. For the schools in the Control group, the increase in attendance over the period is between 3.4-3.5 percent for all grades. The schools in the Smart Classroom-only programme show an increase in attendance of roughly 14%. The schools in the WASH +SC group showed the highest increase in attendance (around 16%). This indicates that the combination of WASH and Smart Classrooms that makes schools the most attractive for students, increasing attendance by 4 times as compared to the control group.

1.3 Outcomes: Test Results

The availability of data across four states presents an opportunity to visualise how the impact is different in each of the four states. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are four states with different development levels, demographics and economies. The impact that Yuva’s interventions have in the four states is also different. For instance, the increase in enrolment and attendance in the schools in Tamil Nadu is the lowest amongst all four states. This could possibly be because Tamil Nadu is high performer in the education sector and already has high levels of enrolment. On the other hand, the increase in the scores is highest in Gujarat. This could be due to the increased expertise of the local teams in Gujarat, which is the home state for YU.

1.4 Outcomes: State-Wise Differences

2. Teacher Outcomes

The implementation of the Smart Classroom has a positive effect on the teachers engaged in the programme.
- The process of training, adaptation and engagement with Yuva and the equipment provides additional skills for teachers.
To examine teacher outcomes, we use a theoretical framework proposed by Coe et al (2014) for the ingredients for “great” teaching
Using qualitative feedback from the operational team at Yuva Unstoppable, we operationalise the framework to offer insights into how the smart classroom impacts teaching.

3. Outcomes: Inclusion

YU operates primarily in inner-city government or government-aided schools that serve students from diverse lower socio-economic strata. Often, these schools cater to children whose parents are working in lower income-paid essential services.

To get insights into the nature of the demography that these schools assist, the YU operations team labelled each of the schools in our sample with the demographics of the parents of the students in the school. Approximately 28 percent of the schools in the sample catered to children of labour workers. Farmers, masons, auto-drivers were also large groups, ranging from 7 to 9 percent of the schools. These are depicted in the wordcloud here.

YU provides access to quality education to children in these inner-city schools and contributes greatly to inclusion and towards achieving SDG 4.

3.1 Outcomes: Qualitative

The quantitative data shows a clear increase in all the indicators that we have measured. We look at the qualitative observations made by YU’s organisational team to understand the nature of the improvement that has occurred through the smart classroom. They make the following 8 observations about how the programme has helped teachers and students:

Impact on teachers: Improved lesson delivery, through the aid of technologies.
Improved attentiveness amongst kids: Using interactive multimedia makes the students more interactive.
Familiarisation with new tools: Exposure to new technologies help the teachers to build technological capacity.
Impact on students: With the help of interactive tools, the students are able to grasp at a faster pace leading to improved learning levels. Teachers can teach through digital documents which can be shared directly with the students, eliminating the need for taking notes.
Better understanding of difficult concepts: Students are able understand the difficult concepts much easily because of the multimedia content. The use of web & smart class, any topic can be explained in an engaging manner.
Improved attendance in schools: Multimedia has created an interest in the students, and they therefore enjoy coming to school now.